United States v. Cooks, 3:16-cr-30025

In Feb 2016 Dominic Lee Cooks was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon; indictment included forfeiture of a Cobra .380 handgun and magazine/ammunition.
Cooks pleaded guilty June 30, 2016; plea was accepted and judgment entered in October 2016.
The Government did not move for a preliminary order of forfeiture before sentencing as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(B).
The Government later asked the court to authorize destruction of the seized firearm and ammunition because Cooks, as a felon, cannot possess them and Illinois State Police did not want the storage burden.
The Government invoked the All Writs Act as authority and proposed giving notice to any known third parties; the court found no known third-party claimants on the record.
The court denied the destruction request because criminal forfeiture procedures (Rule 32.2 and related statutes) were not followed, leaving potential third-party interests unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may authorize destruction of seized firearm/ammo in this criminal case without a preliminary order of forfeiture	Gov't: All Writs Act empowers court to authorize destruction to avoid indefinite storage burden	Cooks: Implicitly relies on Rule 32.2 procedures and third-party notice protections; court must follow statutory procedure	Denied — court may not use All Writs Act to order destruction where Rule 32.2 and statutory forfeiture framework apply
Whether destruction would circumvent third-party rights and the notice/ancillary process	Gov't: Will provide personal notice to any known colorable owners; minimal risk	Cooks: Destruction would extinguish possible third-party interests without required process	Held for Cooks — unresolved third-party interests preclude destruction absent Rule 32.2 compliance
Whether Rule 36 allows correction of the judgment to add forfeiture after sentencing because preliminary order was omitted	Gov't: Failure to seek preliminary order was an oversight; Rule 36 could cure omission	Cooks: Rule 36 limited to clerical errors where preliminary order existed; not applicable here	Denied — Rule 36 inapplicable where preliminary order was never entered; Quintero distinguished

Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) (All Writs Act is residual authority and cannot displace statutory schemes)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34 (1985) (courts should not issue ad hoc writs when statutory procedures apply)
Godoski v. United States, 307 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2002) (limitations on All Writs Act where other remedies exist)
United States v. Quintero, 572 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 36 permits clerical correction when a preliminary order of forfeiture was entered but omitted from judgment)